DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/14/2025 has been entered.
The Office action on currently pending elected claims 29, 31, and 32 follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed (IDS) filed on 03/23/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii), which requires a copy of the written English-language translation of a non-English-language document. There is no written English-language translation of the Non-Patent Literature (NPL) document listed in the aforementioned IDS (i.e., Chinese Office Action issued in Application No. 202180044231.0 dated January 5, 2026). Therefore, said NPL document has not been considered and has been crossed through on the IDS form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,873,530 to Belady et al. (hereafter “Belady”, of record) in view of US 6, 229, 702 to Tao et al. (hereafter “Tao”).
Regarding claim 29, Belady discloses (Figs. 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B) a communication module comprising: a first substrate (100) having a first hole (104) formed herein; a communication unit including a second substrate (806) on which a plurality of elements (816, 818) are disposed on a first surface thereof; a heat sink (800, 802, 804) disposed on a second surface of the second substrate; and at least one connector (820) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein an edge region of the second substrate (806) is disposed to vertically overlap a periphery of the first hole (104) of the first substrate (100), (Fig. 8B), wherein the at least one connector connects a first terminal (inherently present to interact with the connector (820)) of the first substrate and a second terminal (inherently present to interact with the connector (820)) of the second substrate, wherein the heat sink (800, 802, 804) includes a body (800), a plurality of heat dissipation fins formed to protrude from a surface of the body (fins are not labeled, but clearly seen on the Figs. 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B).
In relation to the embodiment of Figs. 8A, 8B Belady does not disclose that the first hole is disposed at a center of the first substrate, a fastening member coupled to the heat sink, wherein a first protrusion extending from the body in horizontal direction, and wherein the fastening member penetrating the first substrate is coupled to the first protrusion.
However, in relation to the embodiment of Figs. 7A and 7B, Belady discloses that the first hole (710) is disposed at a center of the first substrate (706), in order to provide effective cooling for an additional electronic component (730) (via a protrusion (704) of a heat sink (700)).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in relevant arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified to the embodiment of Figs. 8A and 8B of Belady according to the teachings of the embodiment 7A and 7B of Belady, by disposing the first hole at the center of the first substrate, in order to predictably provide effective cooling for additional electronic component(s). Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in relevant arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have disposed the first hole at any desired (i.e., central) location on the first substrate, in order to predictably provide effective cooling for centrally located electronic component(s), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Yet alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in relevant arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have disposed the additional (first hole) at a center of the first substrate in the embodiment of Figs. 8A, 8B, in order to predictably provide effective cooling for centrally located electronic component(s), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Furthermore, Belady as modified above still does not disclose: a fastening member coupled to the heat sink, wherein a first protrusion extending from the body in horizontal direction, and wherein the fastening member penetrating the first substrate is coupled to the first protrusion.
However, Belady teaches that the heat sink is coupled to the first substate (100) (col. 7, ll. 63-65; Fig. 6, step (616); claim 1).
Furthermore, Tao teaches (Figs. 8) a fastening member (56) coupled to the heat sink (52), wherein a first protrusion (521) extending from the body of the heat sink (52) in horizontal direction, and wherein the fastening member (56) penetrating the first substrate (54) is coupled to the first protrusion (521).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in relevant arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified to the embodiment of Figs. 8A and 8B of Belady according to the teachings of Tao, so the modification would have: a fastening member coupled to the heat sink, wherein a first protrusion extending from the body in horizontal direction, and wherein the fastening member penetrating the first substrate is coupled to the first protrusion, in order to predictably accomplish effective coupling between the heat sink to the first substrate. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 31 and 32, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belady as previously modified and further in view of US 2014/0268613 to Russell (of record), or alternatively over Belady as previously modified and further in view of US 8,179,693 to Brodsky et al. (hereafter “Brodsky”, of record).
Regarding claim 31, Belady as previously modified discloses that the at least one connector includes a third substrate (i.e., a body of the connector), but does not disclose that said third substrate having a second hole formed therein, a metal layer disposed on an inner surface of the second hole, a first metal pad disposed at a first end of the metal layer, and a second metal pad disposed at a second end of the metal layer, and wherein the metal layer includes a hole disposed in a vertical direction.
However, Russell discloses (Fig. 1) substrates (10, 15) having a hole (11, 12) formed therein, a metal layer disposed on an inner surface of the hole (i.e., to form conductive vias, par. [0016]), a first metal pad (9) disposed at one end of the metal layer, and a second metal pad (9) disposed at the other end of the metal layer (i.e., thus forming a conductive via) in order to provide reliable electrical interconnections.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in relevant arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the connector of Belady as previously modified according to the teachings of Russell, so the connector would include a third substrate having a second hole formed therein, a metal layer disposed on an inner surface of the second hole, a first metal pad disposed at one end of the metal layer, and a second metal pad disposed at the other end of the metal layer, and wherein the metal layer includes a hole disposed in a vertical direction, in order to predictably provide reliable electrical interconnection between the first and second substrates. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Alternatively, regarding claim 31, Brodsky also discloses (Fig. 7) substrates (702) having holes (734, 736) formed therein, a metal layer disposed on an inner surface of the hole (i.e., to form conductive vias, col. 10, ll. 50-56) , a first metal pad (724, 726) disposed at one end of the metal layer, and a second metal pad (724, 726) disposed at the other end of the metal layer (i.e., thus forming conductive vias), in order to provide reliable electrical interconnections.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in relevant arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the connector of Belady as previously modified according to the teachings of Brodsky, so the connector would include a third substrate having a second hole formed therein, a metal layer disposed on an inner surface of the second hole, a first metal pad disposed at one end of the metal layer, and a second metal pad disposed at the other end of the metal layer, and wherein the metal layer includes a hole disposed in a vertical direction, in order to predictably provide reliable electrical interconnection between the first and second substrates. Also, all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, since plated vias have been notoriously known and widely used in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention1, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in relevant arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the filled vias taught by Russell and Brodsky with plated vias, thus providing a vertical hole in the metal layer, in order to reduce quantity of the metal conductor, thus reducing manufacturing costs. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 32, as best understood, previously modified Belady as further modified by Russell discloses that the metal layer (Russell, elements (11, 12)), the first metal pad (Russell, element (9)), and the second metal pad (Russell, element (9)) are integrally formed (inherently, since they all are mechanically interconnected in the final product); the first metal pad (Russell, element (9)) comes into contact with the first terminal of the first substrate (Belady, element (100)); and the second metal pad (Russell, element (9)) comes into contact with the second terminal of the second substrate (Belady, element (806)) (Belady, Figs. 8A, 8B; Russell, Figs. 1 and 2).
Alternatively, regarding claim 32, previously modified Belady as further modified by Brodsky discloses that the metal layer (Brodsky, elements (734, 736)), the first metal pad (Brodsky, elements 724, 726)), and the second metal pad (Brodsky, elements (724, 726)) are integrally formed (inherently, since they all are mechanically interconnected in the final product); the first metal pad comes into contact with the first terminal of the first substrate (Belady, element (100)); and the second metal pad comes into contact with the second terminal of the second substrate (Belady, element (806)) (Belady, Figs. 8A, 8B; Brodsky, Fig. 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: US 6164981, US 6243264, US 5155661, US 6157539, US 7759790, and US 5901039 teach cooling arrangements for electronic devices utilizing heat sinks with fastening member(s) coupled to the protrusions of the heat sink(s). Each of the aforementioned references could have been also used for statutory rejection of the at least independent claim 29.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Anatoly Vortman/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2841
1 Examiner’s Note: Since Applicant has failed to seasonably traverse the aforementioned well-known statement originally presented in the final Office action of 09/17/2025, the object of said well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d71, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943), ("If Applicant does not seasonably traverse the well-known statement during examination, then the object of the well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art"). MPEP 2144.03 (C).
Prosecution Insights